I really doubt that the EU would hold together in the face of strong opposition. On paper it looks powerful but when it comes down to it, are the Germans and the French willing to die for Romania or the Baltic states? I want to say yes, but when I see stuff like the baltic gas pipeline that will keep the gas flowing to Germany while Russia puts the screws to Eastern Europe I know the answer is no.
So you're saying that NATO is an impossibility?
Yes actually, it's gotten too big and brought in members it has no credible way to defend. And as I have said I doubt France and Germany and even the US would be willing to fight and die for Eastern Europe.
I'm sure there will be strongly worded but polite diplomatic protests though.
Mr. Pokeylope on
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.
HAH! This I find rich. And pray tell, will you be telling the fisherman who is out of a job that it's for the good? Will you tell the man who has three kids the reasons why he now has to worry about his family living off the street? Find other ways of reproducing the fish amount, don't kill the livelyhood of the worker otherwise he'll turn against you.
I could care less about Portugese and Spanish fishing vessels fishing illegally in the Grand Banks and other parts of the Atlantic ocean - if they all lost their jobs tomorrow thanks to new laws prohibiting their dangerous practices I would probably hold a party.
PS: What do you tell the Newfoundland men and women who have had their livelihood damaged thanks to the (illogical, regressive, stupid?) EU ban on seal products?
I'd advise Newfoundland to never join the EU. Then i'd tell them to take it up with the WTO. I'd think one's opinion on the ban depends on how you feel about killing seals.
If you're concerned about animal cruelty in killing methods, then it's almost impossible to determine which seals were killed "humanely" and which weren't, and so the most efficient and easy solution is to ban all products, and reconsider the issue if Canada reforms its seal products industry.
It may be bad for Newfoundland, but whether it's illogical, stupid or regressive depends on one's political viewpoints. That is something expressed via european political institutions, but not determined by them.
God don't start the seal debate, every single Canadian on these forums will come down with righteous fury.
Basically, the seal hunt is not inhumane. It doesn't need reforms... because it is fine the way it is. Banning it is completely based on the fact that seals look "cute".
My point was that post wasn't to engage with the substance of the seal killing debate, but to explain that one's views on accepting seal products depends on A) whether seals are being killed humanely, and whether it is even possible to kill animals with advanced nervous systems humanely and commercially.
It does not depend on whether the EU as a customs union is making these decisions or member-states are.
As an American, I hope this doesn't happen, because IIRC the EU already has a bigger combined GDP than the US. What will we crow about if we can't call ourselves the one superpower anymore?
China beat you there years ago.
Really? Pretty sure that's dramatically wrong. Unless you're just talking about China being a superpower, in which case, who knows, man, who knows?
It is dramatically wrong, China is currently the world's 2nd largest economy behind the U.S. after recently passing Japan.
Also, China is not a superpower. Its military is large but poorly equipped and trained. They don't have a single nuclear powered aircraft carrier while the U.S. boasts at least 6, just as one example.
As for the thread, a United States of Europe is incredibly unlikely, as even the moderate EU is facing serious problems with economic protectionism regarding East v West Europeans. Also there are sovereignty issues like those mentioned regarding the UK.
It's not to say it couldn't ever happen ever, but not any time soon.
I really doubt that the EU would hold together in the face of strong opposition. On paper it looks powerful but when it comes down to it, are the Germans and the French willing to die for Romania or the Baltic states? I want to say yes, but when I see stuff like the baltic gas pipeline that will keep the gas flowing to Germany while Russia puts the screws to Eastern Europe I know the answer is no.
So you're saying that NATO is an impossibility?
Without the American cowboy attitude and vast amount of guns, pretty much, yeah.
I'm uncomfortable with the thought of having my laws dictated by a union in which making holocaust denial illegal has some real traction with some of the largest members.
Its not illegal in the entire union, only in Germany and Austria. This is for the obvious reason that citizens of these countries committed the holocaust. In the rest of Europe its legal, but might get you for hate speech if you go to far (The holocaust didn't happen, but it should have kinda thing). Hate speech is not free speech.
Even then its very rare for any prosecution to get of the ground.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.
HAH! This I find rich. And pray tell, will you be telling the fisherman who is out of a job that it's for the good? Will you tell the man who has three kids the reasons why he now has to worry about his family living off the street? Find other ways of reproducing the fish amount, don't kill the livelyhood of the worker otherwise he'll turn against you.
I could care less about Portugese and Spanish fishing vessels fishing illegally in the Grand Banks and other parts of the Atlantic ocean - if they all lost their jobs tomorrow thanks to new laws prohibiting their dangerous practices I would probably hold a party.
I think we're crossing swords here on the wrong thing; I know little about the Portugese and Spanish illegal fishing. I do know fishing in Scotland is legal and is made up of quite normal people out to make a living, and as such lumping them into the same group as the Spanish and the Portuguese illegal fisherman is rather unfair. The Scots were quite happily fishing legally until the EU cut in without a proper study of Scottish fishing lanes and such.
yes, you do. this is what happens when you enact laws of that sort of nature. the only catch is when it affects enough people that the temporary problem doesn't correct itself, the government should be stepping in to lend a hand
And how exactly do you lend a hand? We're talking about simple people here, the equivalent of the coal miners or the workers of the 70s. They can't effectively be re-educated, so the Government's only offer to them is benefits. But benefits puts a strain on the economy that the Government can ill afford. So the unemployed fisherman is told he must find a new job within a 6 month period. But there's little to no employment anyway where he lives, so he is unable to do it. So he becomes embittered, angry, and eventually probably performs illegal acts or ends up on the street. All in the name of saving fish?
The Lisbon Treaty is being voted on again here in about 2 months, and it'll probably pass this time
That kinda rubs wrong with me too: They vote no, so now they have to vote again? Will this continue until they get the right answer?
That's how referenda work.
I know I'll be voting no. The wankers. The government won't be distracted by the change in leadership this time around and will have a massively funded ad campaign to get people on their side.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
Did you know for instance that the British ratings system now has to be ratified because of European policy that has caused a loophole allowing kids to buy 18 rated games and movies in stores without any sort of prosecution or method to stop them? Thank you EU.
No, I didn't know that. Do you have a link to an article on this? From what I know, the UK government decided to switch from the BBFC - which has always been legally enforcible - to the EU's PEGI system, thanks to industry lobbying.
Did you know for instance that the British ratings system now has to be ratified because of European policy that has caused a loophole allowing kids to buy 18 rated games and movies in stores without any sort of prosecution or method to stop them? Thank you EU.
No, I didn't know that. Do you have a link to an article on this? From what I know, the UK government decided to switch from the BBFC - which has always been legally enforcible - to the EU's PEGI system, thanks to industry lobbying.
That's on the games industry only I believe, and has only recently been ratified:
The Lisbon Treaty is being voted on again here in about 2 months, and it'll probably pass this time
That kinda rubs wrong with me too: They vote no, so now they have to vote again? Will this continue until they get the right answer?
That's how referenda work.
I know I'll be voting no. The wankers. The government won't be distracted by the change in leadership this time around and will have a massively funded ad campaign to get people on their side.
And the no campaign will still be a motley crew of many colours
Saint Madness on
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Did you know for instance that the British ratings system now has to be ratified because of European policy that has caused a loophole allowing kids to buy 18 rated games and movies in stores without any sort of prosecution or method to stop them? Thank you EU.
No, I didn't know that. Do you have a link to an article on this? From what I know, the UK government decided to switch from the BBFC - which has always been legally enforcible - to the EU's PEGI system, thanks to industry lobbying.
That's on the games industry only I believe, and has only recently been ratified:
Reading that, it seems to me that it's not EUs fault that selling adult games to children is no longer prosecutable, but rather the UK government's own fault for not notifying the European Commission about that particular law, whatever such notification means.
Yes but I don't expect that any time in the next two or three decades.
I never said it wouldn't happen.
A lot can change in two or three decades. Look at Germany post WW1, Europe in general post WW2, Japan post... what... 1860-1870 and then post WW1, then post WW2, China post WW2, post 1978, North/South Korea post Japan, America post 1929...
Yes, well, if it happens in three decades and I'm wrong I owe you a coke.
The Lisbon Treaty is being voted on again here in about 2 months, and it'll probably pass this time
That kinda rubs wrong with me too: They vote no, so now they have to vote again? Will this continue until they get the right answer?
That's how referenda work.
I know I'll be voting no. The wankers. The government won't be distracted by the change in leadership this time around and will have a massively funded ad campaign to get people on their side.
And the no campaign will still be a motley crew of many colours
None of whom will understand what the hell they are talking about.
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited August 2009
I've started to become more and more anti-EU since I learned that the people with power in it are mostly morons who get to vote on things they have absolutely no understanding of.
Most people who want power should not have it, yet these people float to the top. The petty arguments at city hall level aren't much different from the petty crap at world governance, sadly.
The mistake with what now is the treaty of Lisbon is ever calling it a constitution. It was a huge miscalculation, and not really fit for what it is: A renegotiation and standardization of existing treaties. There is very little there that's new or powershifting. By calling it a constitution it became the easiest thing in the world to shoot down, especially if it had to be ratified 27 times.
Internet rights are something the EU is pretty split on, mostly because the people who write the stuff have no idea what they're talking about. The EU court is pretty conservative and consumer friendly, some of the proposals from the parliament are downright idiotic. Sadly, while the EU does a lot better in the consumer versus coorperation then say the USA, they are not immune to lobbying.
Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.
HAH! This I find rich. And pray tell, will you be telling the fisherman who is out of a job that it's for the good? Will you tell the man who has three kids the reasons why he now has to worry about his family living off the street? Find other ways of reproducing the fish amount, don't kill the livelyhood of the worker otherwise he'll turn against you.
I could care less about Portugese and Spanish fishing vessels fishing illegally in the Grand Banks and other parts of the Atlantic ocean - if they all lost their jobs tomorrow thanks to new laws prohibiting their dangerous practices I would probably hold a party.
I think we're crossing swords here on the wrong thing; I know little about the Portugese and Spanish illegal fishing. I do know fishing in Scotland is legal and is made up of quite normal people out to make a living, and as such lumping them into the same group as the Spanish and the Portuguese illegal fisherman is rather unfair. The Scots were quite happily fishing legally until the EU cut in without a proper study of Scottish fishing lanes and such.
yes, you do. this is what happens when you enact laws of that sort of nature. the only catch is when it affects enough people that the temporary problem doesn't correct itself, the government should be stepping in to lend a hand
And how exactly do you lend a hand? We're talking about simple people here, the equivalent of the coal miners or the workers of the 70s. They can't effectively be re-educated, so the Government's only offer to them is benefits. But benefits puts a strain on the economy that the Government can ill afford. So the unemployed fisherman is told he must find a new job within a 6 month period. But there's little to no employment anyway where he lives, so he is unable to do it. So he becomes embittered, angry, and eventually probably performs illegal acts or ends up on the street. All in the name of saving fish?
See, here's your problem. You say "saving fish" like it's no big deal.
Fish Stocks are HUGELY fucking important. Both for the economy, feeding people and the ecosystem. The Ocean ecosystem is VERY VERY VERY important.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying "We can't stop dumping poison into the drinking water. How will the 'Poison-Dumpers' feed their children if we do that???".
Most people who want power should not have it, yet these people float to the top. The petty arguments at city hall level aren't much different from the petty crap at world governance, sadly.
Petty arguments at city hall are generally WORSE. And pettier.
The minds are smaller (the 'cream' having floated to a higher level of governance) and less people are watching.
Do you know why EU fishing laws are "so draconian"? Because Spanish, Portugese and UK fisherman have been eradicating fish populations. The Japanese and US are as bad in their EEZs, too. If you want to eat fish in 50 years, you should be pressing them for even stricter fishing regulations; the more unemployed scotsmen the better.
HAH! This I find rich. And pray tell, will you be telling the fisherman who is out of a job that it's for the good? Will you tell the man who has three kids the reasons why he now has to worry about his family living off the street? Find other ways of reproducing the fish amount, don't kill the livelyhood of the worker otherwise he'll turn against you.
I could care less about Portugese and Spanish fishing vessels fishing illegally in the Grand Banks and other parts of the Atlantic ocean - if they all lost their jobs tomorrow thanks to new laws prohibiting their dangerous practices I would probably hold a party.
I think we're crossing swords here on the wrong thing; I know little about the Portugese and Spanish illegal fishing. I do know fishing in Scotland is legal and is made up of quite normal people out to make a living, and as such lumping them into the same group as the Spanish and the Portuguese illegal fisherman is rather unfair. The Scots were quite happily fishing legally until the EU cut in without a proper study of Scottish fishing lanes and such.
yes, you do. this is what happens when you enact laws of that sort of nature. the only catch is when it affects enough people that the temporary problem doesn't correct itself, the government should be stepping in to lend a hand
And how exactly do you lend a hand? We're talking about simple people here, the equivalent of the coal miners or the workers of the 70s. They can't effectively be re-educated, so the Government's only offer to them is benefits. But benefits puts a strain on the economy that the Government can ill afford. So the unemployed fisherman is told he must find a new job within a 6 month period. But there's little to no employment anyway where he lives, so he is unable to do it. So he becomes embittered, angry, and eventually probably performs illegal acts or ends up on the street. All in the name of saving fish?
See, here's your problem. You say "saving fish" like it's no big deal.
Fish Stocks are HUGELY fucking important. Both for the economy, feeding people and the ecosystem. The Ocean ecosystem is VERY VERY VERY important.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying "We can't stop dumping poison into the drinking water. How will the 'Poison-Dumpers' feed their children if we do that???".
We've been fishing since the dawn of bloody time. Thousands of years of doing the same job day in day out. Graphically i'm not sure if there's been any increase in the amount of fishing we have performed so I'd need to check that.
Also you're twisting my argument. My problem is that the EU's regulations are too strict and have not been properly implemented on the basis of what the countries need. Rather a beurocrat somewhere has said "WE MUST SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT!!" has ordered strict measures to do so in fishing lanes and hasn't bothered to actually take a look and see if this might cause a problem or two. Fishing is hardly the same as wastage dumping in water, now is it?
Gee, you don't think that since we were hunting with spears and plague and land animals specialized in ending and eating humankind that there hasn't been a massive increase in our population and capacity for any individual to harvest fish en masse? Really?
Graphically i'm not sure if there's been any increase in the amount of fishing we have performed so I'd need to check that.
The stupid ... it's burns!
Also you're twisting my argument. My problem is that the EU's regulations are too strict and have not been properly implemented on the basis of what the countries need. Rather a beurocrat somewhere has said "WE MUST SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT!!" has ordered strict measures to do so in fishing lanes and hasn't bothered to actually take a look and see if this might cause a problem or two. Fishing is hardly the same as wastage dumping in water, now is it?
Over fishing is close enough.
The government has to look long-term, because people won't.
Destroying fish-stocks in order to save a few jobs is horribly stupid and short-sighted and we are all dumber for having heard you support the position.
Gee, you don't think that since we were hunting with spears and plague and land animals specialized in ending and eating humankind that there hasn't been a massive increase in our population and capacity for any individual to harvest fish en masse? Really?
Not quite what I meant you know, but thanks douche. :evil:
Graphically i'm not sure if there's been any increase in the amount of fishing we have performed so I'd need to check that.
The stupid ... it's burns!
Also you're twisting my argument. My problem is that the EU's regulations are too strict and have not been properly implemented on the basis of what the countries need. Rather a beurocrat somewhere has said "WE MUST SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT!!" has ordered strict measures to do so in fishing lanes and hasn't bothered to actually take a look and see if this might cause a problem or two. Fishing is hardly the same as wastage dumping in water, now is it?
Over fishing is close enough.
The government has to look long-term, because people won't.
Destroying fish-stocks in order to save a few jobs is horribly stupid and short-sighted and we are all dumber for having heard you support the position.
Sigh. Ok was a stupid question.
If it's shorted sighted, pray tell what's your long term view in what to do then? Are you in agreeance with the EU policy or what? Indeed, if you were the minister/mayor that had just enacted this, what would your plans be for the people who just lost their jobs, particularly in this recession? (note also that it isn't a FEW!).
If it's shorted sighted, pray tell what's your long term view in what to do then? Are you in agreeance with the EU policy or what? Indeed, if you were the minister/mayor that had just enacted this, what would your plans be for the people who just lost their jobs, particularly in this recession? (note also that it isn't a FEW!).
You do realize that by not enacting these restrictions those peoples' kids would never be able to get a job as fishermen in the first place because there wouldn't be any fish left to catch, right?
This regulation did not fall out of the sky. It has been coming since 1970, when the problems of overfishing first became apparent. Note that fishing is not illegal, it's just quota'd. And some quotas had to be turned down because otherwise there would be no more fishof those kinds.
This is not the EU being evil. This is the EU being sane. Jobloss happens when reality changes and cannot support the habits of the past. Coalmines in europe closed, steelworks mostly disappeared, cars and clothes are manufactured in the east, and there are no more fish in the sea to get.
Hell, the EU subsidies fishing by €1B / year or so, mostly by paying fishermen who can't find enough fish in the water. Now I wonder why they can't find those fish.....
The policy is not perfect, particularly because of the fishing habit of fishing to much, then dumping extra dead fish overboard so that you exactly bring in your quota.
The policy is not perfect, particularly because of the fishing habit of fishing to much, then dumping extra dead fish overboard so that you exactly bring in your quota.
Exactly! Perhaps i'm not making myself clear but i'm not against some form of regulation, i know perfectly well over fishing is dangerous. What i'm against is that the policy has too much red tape and needs amended to cope with such things as Sander said.
The policy is not perfect, particularly because of the fishing habit of fishing to much, then dumping extra dead fish overboard so that you exactly bring in your quota.
Exactly! Perhaps i'm not making myself clear but i'm not against some form of regulation, i know perfectly well over fishing is dangerous. What i'm against is that the policy has too much red tape and needs amended to cope with such things as Sander said.
Well that's not really what you've been saying in this thread. Maybe you should take a moment to think about whether what you're saying reflects your stance on the issue before posting, or if you're not sure, to think about what your stance really is.
Hell, the EU subsidies fishing by €1B / year or so, mostly by paying fishermen who can't find enough fish in the water. Now I wonder why they can't find those fish.....
This is a big problem: there are too many fucking fishers and farmers!
And "oy, get a different job" doesn't work too well.
I've wondered if it's a product of the cold war, where all things else considered, all countries wanted to be able to at least produce enough food to feed themselves. In an uncertain period that's not an unreasonable line of thought, however doing it 12 times over is a bit much.
As I said before, it's basicly a staring contest against the USA, because the first one to drop subsidies is at the other ones mercy for food. Unless both can agree to limit it at the same time. But both face substantial internal resistance too, considering how farming states rule the primaries in the USA, and the veto powers of the benefiting nations in the EU.
The best we can hope I guess is a spending freeze. The economy might just be bad enough to say "we can't afford anymore, we're keeping the sum the same, not adjusted for inflation, and slowly let it die".
Will Europe unite? Yes. I think it will happen in my lifetime, too. The benefits are just too great not to. Economically, the common market has been an incredible success, and at some point, people will begin to realize that having a common political presence in world affairs with the full backing of the union will allow Europe to basically dictate foreign affairs in a lot of ways that individual European nations can't do right now.
Has the EU been a success so far? That's also a resounding "yes." Before the European Coal and Steel Community, Europe was the most violent continent on the planet by far, and since its founding, and especially, its expansion, Europe is now a peaceful place. The only major conflict that has happened in the last 50 years has been the breakup of Yugoslavia, and, considering the history of European politics and how it relates to wars in the Balkans...
Im not, hell I voted NO last time. Staying outside has been great for Norway, we get all the advantages without the shitty parts. Free Riders for the win.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Will Europe unite? Yes. I think it will happen in my lifetime, too. The benefits are just too great not to. Economically, the common market has been an incredible success, and at some point, people will begin to realize that having a common political presence in world affairs with the full backing of the union will allow Europe to basically dictate foreign affairs in a lot of ways that individual European nations can't do right now.
Has the EU been a success so far? That's also a resounding "yes." Before the European Coal and Steel Community, Europe was the most violent continent on the planet by far, and since its founding, and especially, its expansion, Europe is now a peaceful place. The only major conflict that has happened in the last 50 years has been the breakup of Yugoslavia, and, considering the history of European politics and how it relates to wars in the Balkans...
And yet euroskeptic/nationalist political parties made very impressive gains in the recent elections.
I agree with the others in this thread when they say that a United EU is a long way off, if it's going to happen at all.
I think a united Europe could happen fairly quickly if anybody decided to actually push for it in any remotely sane manner. Right now, the structure of the EU is way more complicated than it needs to be and not nearly transparent or democratic enough. And if most people actually understood how the EU works, exactly, it would be a lot harder for nationalist parties to spread fear about a loss of independence or whatever.
Sadly, nobody really seems to be pushing for that. Instead, we get bullshit like the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. About 475 pages, plenty of bullshit that does not belong in any document that has the word constitution in its title and none of the much-needed structural reforms. I would have voted against that crap, had I been given the chance.
The problem is that, once that thing failed, it never crossed the minds of our dear politicians to adress the concerns of those who voted against it. Instead, they decide to try to avoid more referenda in the future. Which is more or less how we got the Treaty of Lisbon (thank you, Ireland, by the way).
It's very easy to see the economic benefits from a common market. The argument that "common legislation"
is required for the successful operation of that market, however, is a huge steaming pile of shit.
Considering the track record of EU directives and how countries are implementing them with the minimal public debate possible, I'd really rather deal with the setback, but try and limit the organization to economic activities.
The EU is a huge mess of inadequacy(and people believing the Constitution that has been pushed for 5+ years would change that in any significant matter, are frankly deluded ), theft, abuse of authority and corruption on a scale probably never seen before.
Still, we're not going to see a unified Europe in the way discussed in this thread.
Resource scarcity, different geopolitical situations and relations to Russia as well as huge cultural and historical differences would be more than enough to prevent it at least for another century.
Indeed. Unless Russia got in on the Euro pact, they would likely become somewhat threatened and end up developing a Russian-China-Middle Eastern pact. And then all hell breaks loose...
I'd be surprised if Europe united any more than it already has. On a national level, I don't think it will "unite" in any way or form during our lifetimes.
There's too much history, difference in opinion, tradition and culture for all the different nations to come so much closer together any time soon.
Popular opinion seems to be against the idea as well.
Wich makes it funny, when you think how united Europe has become in the last 10 years. A universal currency the Euro, The ability to travel across borders without a passport or visa and no tariffs or tolls.
It may surprise people but up to about 20 years ago this was all a pipe dream.
The of maligned practice of the EU standardising things (The EU-banana is a favourite) is really one of the better parts of the EU. Creating a single European standard on safety, education and health have been massive boons to the public.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Posts
Yes actually, it's gotten too big and brought in members it has no credible way to defend. And as I have said I doubt France and Germany and even the US would be willing to fight and die for Eastern Europe.
I'm sure there will be strongly worded but polite diplomatic protests though.
My point was that post wasn't to engage with the substance of the seal killing debate, but to explain that one's views on accepting seal products depends on A) whether seals are being killed humanely, and
It does not depend on whether the EU as a customs union is making these decisions or member-states are.
It is dramatically wrong, China is currently the world's 2nd largest economy behind the U.S. after recently passing Japan.
Also, China is not a superpower. Its military is large but poorly equipped and trained. They don't have a single nuclear powered aircraft carrier while the U.S. boasts at least 6, just as one example.
As for the thread, a United States of Europe is incredibly unlikely, as even the moderate EU is facing serious problems with economic protectionism regarding East v West Europeans. Also there are sovereignty issues like those mentioned regarding the UK.
It's not to say it couldn't ever happen ever, but not any time soon.
Without the American cowboy attitude and vast amount of guns, pretty much, yeah.
Its not illegal in the entire union, only in Germany and Austria. This is for the obvious reason that citizens of these countries committed the holocaust. In the rest of Europe its legal, but might get you for hate speech if you go to far (The holocaust didn't happen, but it should have kinda thing). Hate speech is not free speech.
Even then its very rare for any prosecution to get of the ground.
I think we're crossing swords here on the wrong thing; I know little about the Portugese and Spanish illegal fishing. I do know fishing in Scotland is legal and is made up of quite normal people out to make a living, and as such lumping them into the same group as the Spanish and the Portuguese illegal fisherman is rather unfair. The Scots were quite happily fishing legally until the EU cut in without a proper study of Scottish fishing lanes and such.
And how exactly do you lend a hand? We're talking about simple people here, the equivalent of the coal miners or the workers of the 70s. They can't effectively be re-educated, so the Government's only offer to them is benefits. But benefits puts a strain on the economy that the Government can ill afford. So the unemployed fisherman is told he must find a new job within a 6 month period. But there's little to no employment anyway where he lives, so he is unable to do it. So he becomes embittered, angry, and eventually probably performs illegal acts or ends up on the street. All in the name of saving fish?
I know I'll be voting no. The wankers. The government won't be distracted by the change in leadership this time around and will have a massively funded ad campaign to get people on their side.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
No, I didn't know that. Do you have a link to an article on this? From what I know, the UK government decided to switch from the BBFC - which has always been legally enforcible - to the EU's PEGI system, thanks to industry lobbying.
That's on the games industry only I believe, and has only recently been ratified:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/legal-blunder-allows-retailers-to-sell-adult-games-to-children
There you go.
And the no campaign will still be a motley crew of many colours
Reading that, it seems to me that it's not EUs fault that selling adult games to children is no longer prosecutable, but rather the UK government's own fault for not notifying the European Commission about that particular law, whatever such notification means.
None of whom will understand what the hell they are talking about.
Trying to take my internets away.
The mistake with what now is the treaty of Lisbon is ever calling it a constitution. It was a huge miscalculation, and not really fit for what it is: A renegotiation and standardization of existing treaties. There is very little there that's new or powershifting. By calling it a constitution it became the easiest thing in the world to shoot down, especially if it had to be ratified 27 times.
Internet rights are something the EU is pretty split on, mostly because the people who write the stuff have no idea what they're talking about. The EU court is pretty conservative and consumer friendly, some of the proposals from the parliament are downright idiotic. Sadly, while the EU does a lot better in the consumer versus coorperation then say the USA, they are not immune to lobbying.
See, here's your problem. You say "saving fish" like it's no big deal.
Fish Stocks are HUGELY fucking important. Both for the economy, feeding people and the ecosystem. The Ocean ecosystem is VERY VERY VERY important.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying "We can't stop dumping poison into the drinking water. How will the 'Poison-Dumpers' feed their children if we do that???".
Petty arguments at city hall are generally WORSE. And pettier.
The minds are smaller (the 'cream' having floated to a higher level of governance) and less people are watching.
Resource harvesters self-regulating?
Has that EVER happened?
We've been fishing since the dawn of bloody time. Thousands of years of doing the same job day in day out. Graphically i'm not sure if there's been any increase in the amount of fishing we have performed so I'd need to check that.
Also you're twisting my argument. My problem is that the EU's regulations are too strict and have not been properly implemented on the basis of what the countries need. Rather a beurocrat somewhere has said "WE MUST SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT!!" has ordered strict measures to do so in fishing lanes and hasn't bothered to actually take a look and see if this might cause a problem or two. Fishing is hardly the same as wastage dumping in water, now is it?
God your dumb.
The stupid ... it's burns!
Over fishing is close enough.
The government has to look long-term, because people won't.
Destroying fish-stocks in order to save a few jobs is horribly stupid and short-sighted and we are all dumber for having heard you support the position.
Not quite what I meant you know, but thanks douche. :evil:
Sigh. Ok was a stupid question.
If it's shorted sighted, pray tell what's your long term view in what to do then? Are you in agreeance with the EU policy or what? Indeed, if you were the minister/mayor that had just enacted this, what would your plans be for the people who just lost their jobs, particularly in this recession? (note also that it isn't a FEW!).
You do realize that by not enacting these restrictions those peoples' kids would never be able to get a job as fishermen in the first place because there wouldn't be any fish left to catch, right?
The cost of doing nothing is never zero.
This is not the EU being evil. This is the EU being sane. Jobloss happens when reality changes and cannot support the habits of the past. Coalmines in europe closed, steelworks mostly disappeared, cars and clothes are manufactured in the east, and there are no more fish in the sea to get.
Hell, the EU subsidies fishing by €1B / year or so, mostly by paying fishermen who can't find enough fish in the water. Now I wonder why they can't find those fish.....
The policy is not perfect, particularly because of the fishing habit of fishing to much, then dumping extra dead fish overboard so that you exactly bring in your quota.
Exactly! Perhaps i'm not making myself clear but i'm not against some form of regulation, i know perfectly well over fishing is dangerous. What i'm against is that the policy has too much red tape and needs amended to cope with such things as Sander said.
Well that's not really what you've been saying in this thread. Maybe you should take a moment to think about whether what you're saying reflects your stance on the issue before posting, or if you're not sure, to think about what your stance really is.
This is a big problem: there are too many fucking fishers and farmers!
And "oy, get a different job" doesn't work too well.
As I said before, it's basicly a staring contest against the USA, because the first one to drop subsidies is at the other ones mercy for food. Unless both can agree to limit it at the same time. But both face substantial internal resistance too, considering how farming states rule the primaries in the USA, and the veto powers of the benefiting nations in the EU.
The best we can hope I guess is a spending freeze. The economy might just be bad enough to say "we can't afford anymore, we're keeping the sum the same, not adjusted for inflation, and slowly let it die".
Has the EU been a success so far? That's also a resounding "yes." Before the European Coal and Steel Community, Europe was the most violent continent on the planet by far, and since its founding, and especially, its expansion, Europe is now a peaceful place. The only major conflict that has happened in the last 50 years has been the breakup of Yugoslavia, and, considering the history of European politics and how it relates to wars in the Balkans...
Im not, hell I voted NO last time. Staying outside has been great for Norway, we get all the advantages without the shitty parts. Free Riders for the win.
And yet euroskeptic/nationalist political parties made very impressive gains in the recent elections.
I agree with the others in this thread when they say that a United EU is a long way off, if it's going to happen at all.
Sadly, nobody really seems to be pushing for that. Instead, we get bullshit like the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. About 475 pages, plenty of bullshit that does not belong in any document that has the word constitution in its title and none of the much-needed structural reforms. I would have voted against that crap, had I been given the chance.
The problem is that, once that thing failed, it never crossed the minds of our dear politicians to adress the concerns of those who voted against it. Instead, they decide to try to avoid more referenda in the future. Which is more or less how we got the Treaty of Lisbon (thank you, Ireland, by the way).
is required for the successful operation of that market, however, is a huge steaming pile of shit.
Considering the track record of EU directives and how countries are implementing them with the minimal public debate possible, I'd really rather deal with the setback, but try and limit the organization to economic activities.
The EU is a huge mess of inadequacy(and people believing the Constitution that has been pushed for 5+ years would change that in any significant matter, are frankly deluded ), theft, abuse of authority and corruption on a scale probably never seen before.
Still, we're not going to see a unified Europe in the way discussed in this thread.
Resource scarcity, different geopolitical situations and relations to Russia as well as huge cultural and historical differences would be more than enough to prevent it at least for another century.
There's too much history, difference in opinion, tradition and culture for all the different nations to come so much closer together any time soon.
Popular opinion seems to be against the idea as well.
It may surprise people but up to about 20 years ago this was all a pipe dream.
The of maligned practice of the EU standardising things (The EU-banana is a favourite) is really one of the better parts of the EU. Creating a single European standard on safety, education and health have been massive boons to the public.